Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provisions of the Civil Code of Québec dealing with Prior Claims and Hypothecs constitute an ambitious, although only partly successful, reform of the law relating to security devices. Given the policy objectives underlying any regime of security on property, three major problems with the new Code are immediately apparent: the failure to rationalize the scheme of non-consensual priorities and legal hypothecs; the failure to provide explicitly for an imperative regime of registration and realisation recourses governing any legal transaction which in substance functions as security on property; and the failure to redefine the concept of hypothec to account for its extension to universalities, and incorporeal property. Nevertheless, ordinary canons of codal interpretation give the judiciary sufficient resources to correct, by principled reference to the basic policy goals of this area of the law, most of the textual deficiencies in Book Six of the Civil Code of Québec.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".